How could I not assume that's what you meant? The logic in this statement implies that you believe that he meant that "pandering to male nerds" only means "featuring nearly naked women". Otherwise you wouldn't have made the comment about missing scenes in the original show. Also...
"=" means equal (of course). This means the two things are synonymous. You cannot be one without being the other. By this logic, if you indeed were saying that the correlation was not necessarily exclusive, then you also believe that Spock yelling "KHAAAAAAN!!!!!" is a form of nearly naked women. WTF am I talking about? Allow me to illustrate.
If pandering to male nerds = nearly naked women
and pandering to male nerds = Spock yelling "KHAAAAAAAN!!!"
then nearly naked women = Spock yelling "KHAAAAAAAN!!!"
(this, of course, assumes that you agree that the Spock scene in question really was a treat for the male nerds in the audience, who we earlier established were the primary audience of the original movies)
I don't consider "equal" to mean "completely interchangeable". Even words that are synonymous are not completely interchangeable, since different words have different connotations, shading the meaning of a phrase in a different direction, sometimes slightly, sometimes dramatically.
Or, to get closer to the point, we say that men and women are equal. But does that make us interchangeable?? Good Lord, no! I, for one, would rather look at a pretty lady than a handsome guy; those two are not interchangeable to me.
In reality, "nearly naked women" is a subset of "pandering to male nerds".
And that's what I meant at the outset. Just because I did not mention EVERY element that appeals to male nerds doesn't mean I think that "nearly naked women" is the ONLY element that appeals to male nerds.
So, like I said, you shouldn't have gone down that road in the first place.
What??? Why on earth not?!? Theoretical debate is the best kind! I'm more interested in debating about this than whether or not you can school PDH on the semantics of a couple of his posts, frankly. Exponentially more, in fact.
As am I. Like I said, I deliberately nixed that argument the first time he attempted it.
Also, I'm pretty sure it's a lot more in line with the topic of the thread, ha ha.
Okay, ONE LAST comment. The only reason I mentioned that people may be biased against you was to make a point. The way you argue is pretty hostile for the most part. The POINT of arguing (or debating) is to prove a point. Another way to put it is to get the people you're talking with to agree with you. How can you do that if everyone is getting annoyed and angry at you? I'm certainly not saying you're the only culprit here, but it seems like you take the most heat and honestly, you're posts are often extremely insulting. Not to me mind you, and I think that's because I try to be really professional and respectful in my posts, but in my opinion, even if someone insults you in their post, the best thing to do is diffuse the situation and try to get things civilized again. No one will listen to you if you are fighting. People lose respect for you and the less respect someone has for you, the less they want to listen. My observation is that a lot of people here have lost respect for each other and thus tend to just wait for their turn to speak instead of actually listening to what the other guy has to say.
As you mentioned, many of us have already lost that respect for each other. And frankly, I already know that there's no possibility of getting any back from this bunch, so there's no point in me bothering to try. As I've told them before, I'm not interested in getting them to agree with me on anything, since they never would, no matter how nicely I phrase anything. To them, "The Complainer Is ALWAYS Wrong."
So when I post, I'm only out to get my point -- whatever it is on any given topic -- across. If people agree, that's great; if they disagree, well, it depends on how they disagree...
As you mentioned, you're respectful even in disagreement, so you're cool. These other guys?? I know their tricks all-too well -- apparently MORE than they do mine, despite all their claims. Really, I only take the most heat because I'm more outspoken than most and don't just take their crap when they start flinging it. They even make fun of the more self-effacing people, like Sdsichero -- or, as some of them call him, "Nerdyboy". So much for nicer being safer...
I actually hope that they take the advice a few people have given on this thread, and not bother starting an argument with me anymore. I have never asked anyone for one in the first place; I just come in, express an opinion on something, and one of them decides to make an issue of it.
Certain people, like "Jubilee", will try to pick a fight just because I posted something, while pretty much ignoring the actual topic completely. Check out the "6 Stupid Superheroine Costumes" thread I started. What's the first thing "Jubilee" posts?? An idiotic personal attack on why I started the thread. And Fieldy Snuts comes along to agree with him. Nothing that addresses the actual topic from either of them. Like I said, PREDICTABLE. Needless to say, those people in particular should feel free to stay out of my way. Of course, I know full well they won't, because they can't help themselves, as demonstrated by the aforementioned thread.
And as for biases...we ALL are completely riddled with them. Anyone who says that they are free from bias (or have very few biases) typically are just unaware of the biases they have.
That's my point about reactions to Big Bang Theory. Whether they realize it or not, nerds who vehemently hate the show will do so because they have an inherent bias against it, due to being the target of the jokes.
Okay, I'm done. FOR NOW! MWAH HA HA HA!